Drunk Disney Guest Loses Massive Lawsuit, Kicked Out of Elite Club 33

Walt Disney World Resort might be the go-to destination for out-of-town visitors, but Disneyland Resort in California has a vibrant local crowd that makes the most of their proximity to The Happiest Place on Earth. Many of these Disney enthusiasts not only invest in annual passes, limited-edition merchandise, and exclusive food and beverages, but they also dream of the ultimate Disney experience: membership in Club 33.

Club 33 is Disneyland’s secretive, exclusive dining club nestled within New Orleans Square. From its private balcony, members enjoy unobstructed views of classic attractions like Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion.

The allure of Club 33 is so strong that many Disneyland fans aspire to dine there, even if just once.

The Andersons’ Club 33 Dream

For Scott and Diana Anderson, that dream was a reality. As dedicated Club 33 members, the Andersons visited Disneyland between 60 and 80 times annually. They spared no expense on their $31,500 annual membership and the associated travel and hotel costs. Their passion for Disney was clear, but their membership came crashing down in 2017 under controversial circumstances.

On September 3, 2017, Disney revoked the Andersons’ Club 33 membership, alleging that Scott Anderson was visibly intoxicated while in the park. This decision was a huge blow to the couple, who described it as “a stab in the heart.” Determined to reclaim their membership, Scott and Diana invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a legal battle against Disney.

The Courtroom Drama

The legal saga culminated on September 3, 2024, when an Orange County jury ruled in favor of Disney, upholding the revocation of the Andersons’ membership.

According to The Los Angeles Times, Disney security guards observed Scott Anderson at California Adventure exhibiting signs of intoxication, including slurred speech and difficulty standing. They reported that he “smelled of alcohol quite a lot.”

Scott’s lawyer, Sean Macias, argued that Disney’s investigation was flawed. He claimed that Scott Anderson had only consumed two to three drinks and suggested that his symptoms were actually due to a vestibular migraine, a condition that can be triggered by certain foods and beverages, including red wine.

Macias criticized Disney for not performing a Breathalyzer test or reviewing security footage to substantiate their claims.

Macias also accused Disney of discrimination, alleging that Scott’s medical condition was misinterpreted as drunkenness. However, Disney’s expert testimony countered this, asserting that Anderson’s symptoms were consistent with intoxication rather than a migraine.

The Verdict and Its Impact

Disney’s attorney, Jonathan E. Phillips, defended the company’s actions, emphasizing that Club 33 members are expected to adhere to strict behavior standards, including sobriety.

Phillips argued that Scott Anderson’s refusal to accept responsibility for his actions led to the loss of a dream cherished by both him and his wife.

Despite the court’s decision, Scott Anderson claimed that the case cost him approximately $400,000. His wife, Diana, remains fiercely determined to fight for their lost membership, expressing her willingness to go to great lengths to restore their status, even joking about selling a kidney to fund their battle.

Club 33: The Exclusive Disney Experience

Club 33 continues to be one of Disneyland’s most coveted experiences. With its secretive nature and limited membership, the club represents the pinnacle of Disney luxury. Despite the controversy surrounding the Anderson case, Club 33 remains a symbol of exclusivity and elegance within Disneyland Resort.

As Disneyland and Walt Disney World Resort evolve, the story of Scott and Diana Anderson serves as a reminder of the high stakes involved in securing and maintaining elite membership status at Disney’s most prestigious club. Whether or not the Andersons should have won their case remains a point of debate among Disney enthusiasts.

What do you think? Should Disney have reversed their decision, or did they handle the situation appropriately? Share your thoughts in the comments below!